| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Franklin W. Cain wrote:
> As I understand it, a "primitive" is supposed to be an *atomic* unit,
> something boiled down to its essentials. A disc/circle (or 1/n fraction
> thereof), a cylinder (or 1/n fraction), a rectangle, a triangle, (etc.).
Not necessarily. We usually stick with units of 1 because they're the
most easily scaled, and most easily implied (ie, if every ring has a
n:(n+1) ratio of radii, we don't need to state both radii in the
filename).
OTOH, boxes have side length of 2, because that's how they were
originally set up, back in the day.
> With the ring primitives, they have all been expressed in terms of
> "inner radius", with the outer radius always being "inner rad. plus one".
> I believe that this is the implicit "standard". (Steve?)
It's more than 'implicit'. Maybe it's not quite to the point of being
'explicit', but it was discussed and established.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) I'm not a mech. eng. major, myself, so my knowledge of this CAD stuff is just from my math. skills. That said... As I understand it, a "primitive" is supposed to be an *atomic* unit, something boiled down to its essentials. A disc/circle (or (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
